Search Again: Re: Server Sizing issue:Quickdns-Talk Digest #313 - 16 From: Randy Millsop Date: Saturday, July 17, 1999 Time: 2:14:00 am Hi, I have the same server response issue as Alex, below. We ran QuickDNS on everything from SE30's to WSG80's (Quadra 800) and it was always very fast. You could even run the Admin program anytime and both would perform well. We have a primary domain of 2500 addresses, and a few small domains. So, we have somewhere around 10,000 records loaded, with about 1800 active local users using it to resolve everything for them. This Mac has 40 mb of RAM, runs a stripped 7.6.1 with the latest OT. I've given QuickDNS 20mb or RAM. Since upgrading to v. 2.2, response is about 30% slower and I can't run the Admin app concurrently with the server! So, now I've had to turn Appletalk back on, and use filesharing to update the zone files from another Mac running the Admin. What is it going to take to make it faster than it was before and also be able to run the Admin app concurrently. I'd really like to be able to leave Appletalk off, but if you recommend I update the zone files remotely, then I'll keep doing it this way. But I do need at least a recommendation on the minimun (for excellent performance) and optimum (be resonable) Mac specs to run this server. QuickDNS Talk wrote: > Quickdns-Talk Digest #313 - Fostudagur, 16. juli 1999 > > Server sizing issue? > by <alex@electroniceasel.com> > Really Fouled Up > by "Warren Michelsen" <Warren@MDCCLXXVI.com> > Re: Really Fouled Up > by "Men & Mice Support" <cbuxton@menandmice.com> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Server sizing issue? > From: alex@electroniceasel.com > Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:12:27 -0500 > > We are running QDNS 2.2 on a quadra 840av for our internal network and > mailserver. We serve about 20 domains with a moderate email load (around > 150-175 users) on the network. We have been having a lot of problems > with lookups taking too long since upgrading to 2.2. Before 2.2 we ran > it on a IIci quite successfully. Now it can take between 45 seconds to 2 > minutes to look up any address not in the cache. > Question is, how do we go about trying to figure out how to size the > server and whether or not it should be able to deal with the type of > traffic we have? The statistics in the server window aren't quite what > I'm looking for. Maybe I'm thick, but how do I tell how many lookups are > being done and how well they're being serviced? > Is it the Mac or the new version? We're loggin only important data. > > TIA, > > Alex Palenschat > P.S. As I get this in digest, could you also respond to my address > please. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Really Fouled Up > From: Warren Michelsen <Warren@MDCCLXXVI.com> > Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:00:23 -0700 > > I had to move my servers to a new colo host last week. In advance of the move, I was assigned: > > >Your IP pool is > >209.75.187.201-206 with a gateway of 209.75.187.200 and a netmask of > >255.255.255.248 and your broadcast will be 209.75.187.207 > > Being no subnetting wizard, I took them at their word and started assigning these new numbers and creating new QDNS data files that I could simply copy into the Primary Data folder when the time came, etc. I sent my new host a list of how I wanted the reverse resolution set up. > > I assigned the .201 address and sent in domain registrations to InterNIC using the .201 address -- which turned out to be the gateway address for this subnet. The result was that the .201 address ended up listed with INterNIC as the primary name server web and mail server address for umpteen domains. I've been trying to straighten it out ever since. > > Of course, this made my mail server unreachable so I could not send corrected templates in to InterNIC. After multiple phone calls, I finally had to fax instructions to InterNIC (including a scan of a photo ID!). And they still haven't straightened out the mess -- they did not follow the instructions I sent. > > And though my upstream says they have the reverse DNS working, I can't get the numbers to resolve. > > Can any of you resolve the following numbers? > > 209.75.187.202 > .203 > .205 > .206 > > -- > > Internet Tools for Business -- <http://www.CyberSpaces.net/> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: Really Fouled Up > From: Men & Mice Support <cbuxton@menandmice.com> > Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:18:03 -0700 > > >I had to move my servers to a new colo host last week. In advance of the > >move, I was assigned: > > > >>Your IP pool is > >>209.75.187.201-206 with a gateway of 209.75.187.200 and a netmask of > >>255.255.255.248 and your broadcast will be 209.75.187.207 > > > >Being no subnetting wizard, I took them at their word and started assigning > >these new numbers and creating new QDNS data files that I could simply copy > >into the Primary Data folder when the time came, etc. I sent my new host a > >list of how I wanted the reverse resolution set up. > > > >I assigned the .201 address and sent in domain registrations to InterNIC > >using the .201 address -- which turned out to be the gateway address for > >this subnet. The result was that the .201 address ended up listed with > >INterNIC as the primary name server web and mail server address for umpteen > >domains. I've been trying to straighten it out ever since. > > The simplest solution would have been to give the gateway a different > address. Once something's registered with Internic, it is best to leave it > that way if at all possible. > > The two things you can't change are the network number (200) and the > broadcast address (207). (Well, technically, you *can* change the broadcast > address, but not with Mac or Windows.) The gateway address is just the > address you assign to your router - it can be any legal address on your > subnet. > > >Of course, this made my mail server unreachable so I could not send > >corrected templates in to InterNIC. After multiple phone calls, I finally > >had to fax instructions to InterNIC (including a scan of a photo ID!). And > >they still haven't straightened out the mess -- they did not follow the > >instructions I sent. > > Network Solutions (aka Internic) isn't exactly responsive in cases like > this. Which is why we want competition. > > >And though my upstream says they have the reverse DNS working, I can't get > >the numbers to resolve. > > > >Can any of you resolve the following numbers? > > > >209.75.187.202 > > .203 > > .205 > > .206 > > No. Who's your upstream? If the answer is ni.net, then they haven't > implemented your reverse records yet. If the answer is not ni.net, then > your upstream is going to have some explaining to do, as ni.net is > responsible for your reverse records. > > Here are the delegation records for the class C subnet surrounding your block: > 187.75.209.in-addr.arpa. NS ns1.ni.net. > 187.75.209.in-addr.arpa. NS ns2.ni.net. > These servers have no matching zone file, though. > ____________________________________________________________________ > Chris Buxton Men & Mice > cbuxton@menandmice.com http://www.menandmice.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > End of Quickdns-Talk Digest

Messages In This Thread: Re: Server Sizing issue:Quickdns-Talk Digest #313 - 16 by Randy Millsop on Jul 17, 1999 at 2:14:00 am